Petersen

Trinity?

2011-06-06T11:31:00.000-07:00

Steven Wedgeworth has been posting a series on the Trinity. Though the first several have much to commend them, the most recent one seems to be assuming Reformed and Western distinctives as if they were common to all. It is perhaps slightly off topic since you are talking about Trinitarian theology from a Calvinist perspective: namely, the Orthodox distinguish between the essence and the nature, and likewise the Orthodox (and to some degree I some Lutherans) would be uncomfortable with defining the essence as "eternal, immortal, immutable, self-existing, etc.". And finally, (also on that line) would not a mention of the alternative understanding of "godhead" as operation, from "On not three God's" be appropriate?

Christopher Wordsworth hymnal (See the Conqueror Mounts in Triumph)

2010-12-24T19:13:00.001-08:00

Here it is.

What's the subject of this sentence?

2010-10-26T11:13:00.000-07:00

Just checking, what's the subject of this sentence? "God suffered in the flesh, and not in his aseity." I believe it is God, but I man be mistaken. The reason I ask is that over on Brad Littlejohn's blog I asserted that the divine nature is neither subject nor object, but that God the Word is. The response I received, claimed that my position was outside the patristic doctrine since, the fathers said "God suffered in his flesh, and not in his aseity." But if I am correct that the subject of that sentence is "God", which in this case must mean God the Word, then the response is wholly irrelevant and not on point.

Another comment for Steven

2010-09-15T09:11:00.001-07:00

Steven,

That probably is not what Nicea meant by "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Also, the issue of being a elder is a red-herring. Church government belongs to this age, and is destined to perish with use. But the Eucharistic assembly is preserved. And equality does not refer to some interior unity, but to the Sacramental unity. In that passage from Galatians, St. Paul is explicitly drawing a parallel between circumcision which divided between Jew and God-fearer, and divided among the Jews between male and female; and Baptism, which is common to all worshipers of Christ. "As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Immediately follows (or precedes) that passage, and the passage is in Galatians, which is all about circumcision. There is no restriction between male and female, between Jew and Greek. All are baptized, and all receive communion. All have been sprinkled with the Blood of the New Covenant, which in Hebrews is very clearly the Eucharistic cup.

This issue is precisely the division between the Protestants and Catholics, for the Catholics maintained that the priest receives the Eucharist on behalf of the laity, and withheld the cup from the laity. If our unity is invisible, and not in the Mystic Supper--using the term as de Lubac does--the whole split with Rome is superfluous.

This doesn't seem to be going up. :S

2010-09-14T11:14:00.001-07:00

A response that belongs here.

Peter,

I don’t have much to say, but I thought I should note that your explanation is significantly different from Steven’s. The idea that the one Christian polity is under the king, and directed toward resurrection by the pastors–I should say perhaps shepherded toward resurrection–is not the same as the idea human nature is in two, and therefore needs two politics. The first I think is incomplete, but the second, dangerously false.

Two Cities on Earth, but not within the One City

2010-09-11T15:12:00.000-07:00

This is another, rather more lengthy, response to Wedgeworth. I am rather more sympathetic to Brad Littlejohn's position, which is here.

The chief difficulty I have with Wedgeworth and his friends' model is that it seems to divide the human person into two persons. I would be willing to allow that the civil magistrate is a deacon within the Church, responsible for keeping order in the Church, but the civil magistrate is then not a magistrate within a separate kingdom from the Church, but a petty official within the City of God. (At least the believing magistrate is.)

But when we say things like: "Furthermore, man is always both body and spirit, and he always has bodily concerns and spiritual concerns. Thus man needs to order both his body and his spirit...Thus it should not be thought unusual for us to say that there are both bodily and spiritual sorts of politics. Man is always concerned with both, and thus he fashions representative governments for both. The magistracy rules the bodily realm, and the ministry rules the spiritual realm." we seem to divide the human person into two persons, and moreover, to divide even the city of God into two.

The clearest way I can think of to get at this problem is to adopt the terminology from the Christological controversies, with the question being is Christ from two natures, or merely in two natures. The Miaphysites staunchly maintained Christ is not merely in two natures, but is indeed one from two natures. They accused the Calcedonians of separating Christ into two, and thus embracing de facto Nestorianism--as if Christ existed over here, and separately, over there. Ultimately, the orthodox solution was to embrace both positions, thus St. Maximos the Confessor can say Christ exists in and from two natures.

But as I read it, Wedgeworth's and Escalante's doctrine makes precisely this error the miaphysites accused the orthodox of making. Namely they divide the human person into two persons, one existing here, the other there. They say, in short, that the human person exists in two natures, but implicitly deny there is one human nature from these two natures.

This is a crucial mistake, first, because it denies the unity of Christ. Even in the Eschaton, human nature shall be body and spirit. And if human nature is merely in two, and not from two, even in the Eschaton it shall be in two, not from two. Thus the two kingdoms are not a temporary feature of the New Covenant which is destined to perish with use. Rather, even after the Resurrection, there shall be physical and spiritual politics. But it is only possible to have two polities with two rulers. And therefore the One Christ shall not be one ruler, but shall be two rulers. But Christ is not two Christs, but One. And thus, the hypothesis that we need spiritual and physical politics results in a contradiction, and therefore is false.

N.B. I am not simply taking a Lutheran criticism of the Reformed doctrine of the Incarnation. I do not mean that Wedgeworth's doctrine separates the humanity from the divinity, but rather that it separates even the humanity into two.

Second, it is novel. During the Christological controversies, the Miaphysites were able to say that the orthodox were Nestorian because they claimed that unlike human nature, which is one, though it is from two, Christ's nature is not one. That is, both sides agreed that human nature was not parted into twain, but rather was one composed out of two. This was simply not an issue. Both sides agreed that human nature was one--otherwise how could the Miaphysites have appealed to the unity of human nature as an illustration of their position?

Finally, it is unAugustinian. For Augustine, the City of God consisted of those who were turned by love--on earth as in heaven--rather than by lust for power. But the citizen of the City of God was turned by love in all his affairs, bodily and spiritual. The citizen of the City of Man was turned by lust in all his affairs, bodily and spiritual. Augustine's division is not between the body and the soul, but between charity and lust. Though Wedgeworth's distinction maintains some of the Augustinian concerns, it is radically, a different doctrine.

Rather than saying that human nature exists in two, we rather should say that human nature is from (or in and from two). And if it is from two, we exist in one kingdom—or rather inasmuch as we exist in two kingdoms, it is because they are hostile to each other. Thus St. Paul insists that the Philippians—Roman citizens—do not have human citizenship, but citizenship from heaven. And the Romans, correctly, perceived this challenge to their city. Though the Christians were obedient to the Emperor, they would not recognize the legitimacy of the emperor by offering incense to him, but rather offered incense to the true emperor, Jesus Christ. This is not to say that should the Emperor convert, he must abdicate, but rather that he must recognize that his kingdom is a temporary province of the true Empire, the Church.

Moreover, as N. T. Wright has shown, we are colonists from heaven. Now Roman colonists were farmers sent to till the land, and by planting and harvesting the seeds, turn the land into Roman land. And this is precisely the Christian mission. We are commissioned to labor for the kingdom of heaven, and through our labors and prayers to bring the kingdom onto earth. And we labor for heaven, turning this world into heaven, through farming the land. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” We labor by planting our bodies as seeds in the land here, awaiting that day when the “at Christ’s glorious advent [this] holy harvest field shall all its full abundance yield , then the golden ears of harvest shall before His presence wave, rising in the sunshine glorious from the furrows of the grave.” (As the Christopher Wordsworth hymn says.)

And thus we come to the correct understanding of the fallen, but redeemed, human person. The fallen but redeemed man is in the world as Christ was in the world. That is, we are subject to corruption, but “belong body and soul”, to the kingdom of heaven. And we are, body and soul, a seed. And in Christ, we have become, body and soul, a living, heavenly seed. And as Christ’s body and soul was a living seed, and has risen again as the firstfruits, and has waved before the Father as a firstfruit offering, so we are, body and soul seed which shall grow into a heavenly person, humanly identical to Christ. We do not exist in two realms, but rather are one from two, and awaiting planting that we may sprout up, body and soul, into new life.

The ministers of the Church are given to guide this seminal Church, this seminal heaven, till that time when we, and she, shall spring out from the furrows of the grave, and wave before Christ’s presence. Likewise, when the civil magistrate submits himself to the Church—not to the magisterium, but to the Church—he takes a position within the Church, physically ordering the kingdom of heaven. Helping, in his way, to plant the seeds; as the pastors help in theirs.

Moreover, as an officer in the Church—unless the Church is fundamentally Macabean, not Davidic, which is a coherent position, in which case he would have a position in the Church, but merely a functional one, and not an official one at all—he should be subject to church discipline, particularly to the sort of discipline exercised against officers, namely, defrocking. And he specifically is not the ruler of the bodily realm—as if such a thing existed.

Two kingdoms?

2010-09-07T16:11:00.000-07:00

This is a reaction to this post.

I think I disagree with your anthropology. Human nature is one, from two; human nature is not two. I do not exist in two kingdoms; I, who am from two natures, exist in one kingdom. Similarly, the Church on Earth is one kingdom, from two; not in two.

It seems that your understanding here makes me, and the Kingdom, into two.

"Man is always concerned with both, and thus he fashions representative governments for both. The magistracy rules the bodily realm, and the ministry rules the spiritual realm." (And elsewhere.)

And this is problematic because even in the Resurrection I will be from two. The visible/invisible distinction in this sense refers to something that shall exist even after the resurrection. If I am now in two kingdoms, I shall even then be in two kingdoms. And though we would not need a king with the sword, Christ, when ordering our bodies, would have a different office than Christ when ordering our souls. Which is nonsense.

It seems rather that you should say that man is one from two, and that the ministry, as those who hold the Word and Sacrament is able to penetrate directly into the heart, and thence onto the body; whereas the king, in his exercise of authority, works on the body, and thence on the heart. (Though that is not quite sufficient as the Word and Sacraments are all received bodily.)

But if that is the case, the magistrate has, like the Pastors, a ministry within the Church (though, of course, a distinct ministry from them). Moreover, if he is to be responsible for maintaining visible order within the Church (as he was in the ancient world, and is in England) he has a position of ministry with in the Church as a deacon. Which should mean that the ministers can, in extreme circumstances, defrock him, and then excommunicate him if he refuses to abdicate.

Moreover, the soul is to rule the body either as a king his peers, or as a king his subjects, depending on which aspect of the body is referred to. Which means that the king should be subject to the ministers, and not the Church itself under the king, for She is from two, and if the Church is under the king, the Spirit of the Church is under the king.

It was a very bright day, for both the sun and the moon were shining

2010-05-31T14:26:00.000-07:00

A couple of months ago I had a discussion on the Biblical Horizons blog here. Both sides seemed to be talking past each other. I thought about it again today, and I think I can succinctly phrase my chief concern.

"It was a very bright day, for both the sun and the moon were shining."

I suppose no none would be silly enough to actually write this, but if they were, they would not communicate so much the brightness of the day, as the dimness of the sun.

Statements like (and I'm not quoting you) "God blessed Mary and Joseph with Jesus, but continued to bless them, increasing their honor with more children." makes the same mistake as the above quote. It does not so much honor Mary and childbearing, as minimize the honor which is Christ Himself.

Similarly, consider the following (rather silly) statement "Though Aristotle had many great writings, though he nearly single handedly founded the study of Rhetoric, literary criticism, metaphysics, science, astronomy, and many other disciplines; the honor in these hardly deserves mention next to his greatest honor: he was the tutor of Alexander the Great." Though this statement superficially purports to praise Aristotle, in fact, it is (rather clearly) over the top praise of Alexander the Great.

But if we change it slightly, substituting Mary for Aristotle, and Jesus for Alexander the Great, it is no longer excessive, but a fitting praise for Jesus. And Orthodox praise of Mary, in which the praise of her as ever-virgin plays a large part, has become such praise of Christ. As such, we must be very careful that in correcting errors they have made, we do not make them say something like "Aristotle is chiefly to be honored for tutoring Alexander, but aside from this he has many other great accomplishments, including the founding of the disciplines of..." which, though more fitting praise of Alexander, is nearly blasphemous when made praise of Christ.

And my concern with what you have written about Mary here, though it is in many ways admirable, is that it falls into these two traps. In the first place, while attempting to honor childbearing, it in fact dims Christ; and while attempting to correct Orthodox errors, in fact, treats Christ as just another man.

The Reformed Faith

2010-05-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

I just listened to Pr. Wilson's second quick talk on Eastern Orthodoxy. You can find the talk here. Overall the talk was neither impressive, nor unimpressive. he didn't really say anything surprising. But one quote really bothered me. "A husband falling into doctrinal sin like that...and that's what it is...he's backsliding, he's falling away from the Reformed Faith." I'll grant that Orthodoxy isn't the Church. Sure. But this quote cannot be correct. First, if someone left Trinity for an E-Free church, I would say there are serious problems with the decision, but it is a complicated issue, and in some ways they are going right, in some, wrong. If they leave hostilely, that is a problem, but in leaving itself cannot be described simply as backsliding. Reducing a conversion to Orthodoxy to backsliding simply, makes light of what is a hard complicated decision, and likewise of the one who makes the decision. And, more seriously, it makes the Orthodox semi Christians. Do they deny God the Father maker of Heaven and Earth? Do they deny Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord? Do they deny the Holy Spirit? Do they refuse to acknowledge one Baptism for the Remission of Sins? Do they rupture from the Historic Church, thus denying the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? In no, they are Christians.

But far more serious than this: What is this "Reformed Faith"? Reformed Doctrine is good. I am a member of a Reformed Church. Reformed Churches are good. But what is the Reformed Faith? "One Lord, One Reformed Faith, One Baptism"? No. The Reformed Faith was created in Hell. The Reformed Faith be damned. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. The Orthodox worship Jesus Christ, the Orthodox are baptized in His name. They are not of a different faith.

Christ is Risen!

2010-05-03T11:24:00.000-07:00

ἀναστήτω ὁ θεός καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ! Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν!

We sang Psalm 68 at Matins today, and I was struck by how fitting a Psalm it is for Eastertide. We generally associate verse 18 with Easter: "Thou art gone up on high; Thou hast led captivity captive, and received gifts for men; yea, even from Thine enemies, that the Lord God might dwell among them."--if only because of the Aria from Messiah. But the whole Psalm is filled with Easter references. "The Lord gives the the women who announce the news are a great host" is a prophesy of Mary preaching the good news to the Apostles. And most strikingly, verse 1 is a clear reference to the Resurrection. "Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered." In English "arise" could be taken as a reference to the Resurrection, but there is not much linguistic reason for saying it is. But the LXX is much more clear. Anastito ho Theos!" Prior to the resurrection this would mean "Let God arise." But the first word of Psalm 68 is the verb form of resurrection (anastasia). The same is true in the Hebrew "Yakum Elohim!" "Resurrect! Let God Resurrect!" would perhaps be a better translation.

I also think the end of verse 18 as a prophesy of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit make his dwelling among us.

Prayers to the Saints and Prayers to the Saints

2010-04-05T22:35:00.000-07:00

"In particular, we should be very suspicious of the medieval idea that the saints can function as friends at court so that while we might be shy of approaching the King ourselves, we know someone who is, as it were, one of us, to whom we can talk freely and who will maybe put in a good word for us...If you have a royal welcome awaiting you in the throne room itself, for whatever may be on your heart and mind, whether great or small, why would you bother hanging around the outer lobby trying to persuade someone there, however distinguished to go in and ask for you?" --N.T. Wright Surprised by Hope p. 173.

He is absolutely right, but I would also like to add that he captures well a distinction between Orthodox and much Catholic prayers to the saints. (I would still object to Orthodox prayers to the saints, but not on quite the same grounds, nor so vehemently.) The Orthodox do not pray to the saints because they are the courtiers who have the king's ear, but because the king has lots of friends in his presence, and he would like to share them with us. And that difference is liturgical.

Again, I'm not endorsing the Orthodox view, just taking notes.

2010-04-04T17:09:00.000-07:00

"Both literalism and skepticism regularly operate with what is called a receptacle view of space; theologians who take the ascension seriously insist that it demands what some have called a relational view...Heaven relates to earth tangentially so that the one who is in heaven can be present simultaneously anywhere and everywhere on earth: the ascension therefore means that Jesus is available, accessible, without people having to travel to a particular spot on the earth to find him." --N. T. Wright Surprised by Hope p. 111

Not arguing anything here, just posting a question to keep track of it. I may follow it up with other thoughts later. But maybe not.

The Reformed argument, and indeed I have been told Wright's own argument, against the Lutheran position that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, and the Wine is His Blood, is that Jesus is physically in heaven, not on earth, and thus the Lutheran doctrine is a denial of the true humanity of Christ. But if Wright is correct that one who is in heaven can be present simultaneously anywhere and everywhere on earth, what is the problem with Jesus being simultaneously on the tables in all the churches on earth? And indeed wouldn't the argument that Christ cannot be simultaneously, physically, in heaven and on earth be a denial of his ascended body? Yet Wright would, I believe, make just that argument. I must be missing something.

Eternal Truths

2010-04-04T14:40:00.000-07:00

Randall Munroe captures a typical modern attitude, one which those of us studying Mathematics are particularly prone to. In other areas we may debate the truth. In other areas truths change. In other areas truths are contingent. But here, in mathematics, we find ultimate unchangeable incorruptible truths. 2+2=4. Finite fields off order p^n exist and are unique. Every number greater than 5 can be expressed as the sum of three prime numbers. (Perhaps.) Always and everywhere, eternally and incorruptibly.

But this is false. Only God is eternal. Mathematicians do not teach eternal unchanging truths. "Christ is Risen!" Here is an eternal unchanging ultimate truth. This corruptible must put on incorruption. Mathematics, even mathematics, is but flesh, and must put on incorruption. Even 2+2=4 shall grow old and die. But Christ is Risen! In this, the one eternal truth, the one perfect truth, the one ultimate truth, all other truths are saved and resurrected.

"Yet by God's death the stars shall stand
And the small apples grow."
And by God's death and resurrection, one and one make two.

The Windhover

2010-03-02T15:28:00.001-08:00

To Christ our Lord
G. M. Hopkins

I CAUGHT this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding
Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding
High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing, 5
As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding
Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!

Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here
Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion 10
Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!

No wonder of it: shéer plód makes plough down sillion
Shine, and blue-bleak embers, ah my dear,
Fall, gall themselves, and gash gold-vermillion.

Psalm 107 and Matthew 8

2010-02-25T09:26:00.000-08:00

They mounted up to the heavens and fell back to the depths; *
their hearts melted because of their peril.

They reeled and staggered like drunkards *
and were at their wits' end.

Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, *
and he delivered them from their distress.

He stilled the storm to a whisper *
and quieted the waves of the sea.

Then were they glad because of the calm, *
and he brought them to the harbor they were bound for.

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

More on glory

2010-02-24T10:23:00.000-08:00

Israel made a bull-calf at Horeb *
and worshiped a molten image;

And so they exchanged their Glory *
for the image of an ox that feeds on grass.

We sang this at Matins today, and I was struck by the word "Glory". Who is the glory of Israel? Jesus Christ. What does it mean for them to forsake their Glory? To seek after other gods.

Similarly, who is the Glory of Jesus? Who is the glory of the Man? Israel. What would it mean for YHVH to give his glory to another? To let his bride sleep around with other gods, to let her cease to be his.

But God shall not give his glory to another. He shall visit and redeem his people.

God glories to glorify.

2010-02-17T21:09:00.000-08:00

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

Some Christians have taken this verse and run with it. On their reading, God's fundamental attribute is seeking his own glory. Without modification there are obvious Trinitarian problems with that statement. At the very least it needs to be modified to say something like the Son’s fundamental attribute is seeking his Father’s glory. But even given that necessary modification it is still seems problematic to say that God’s greatest desire is his own glory.

First, such a statement though not contradicting the Nicene Creed, is rather in tension with it. “For us men, and for our salvation…and was crucified also for us…” According to Nicea, Jesus did not become incarnate for his own glory, but for us men.

Second, it claims that God’s gifts are the height of illiberality. Which is contrary to tradition, and also means sanctification is not being conformed into the image of God.

It also seems to run into problems with divine aseity. No matter how much we glorify God, his glory is not increased one jot by our glorification of Him. He is glorified before all worlds (John 17:5) nothing we do can add to that glory. If God always seeks His own glory, he need do nothing in the world.

But most fundamentally, it contradicts revelation the revelation of Jesus Christ.

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

Though in Isaiah Jesus said that He would not give His glory to another, in John, He says He has. Indeed the gospel message is that the Father has given us His Glory—Jesus Christ—and Jesus Christ has given us His Glory—the Holy Spirit. When we say God does not give away His glory, we are essentially seeking to be Christians without Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, or Pentecost.

But what then does Isaiah mean?

First, when we seek to understand these two verses, one that says Jesus does not share his glory with another, another which says He has, it is absolutely necessary to begin with the clear revelation—the revelation of Jesus Christ. God does share His Glory, and He is a God who delights to share His glory. “God is love.”

But what does Isaiah mean?

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof. Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his praise in the islands. The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

The woman is the glory of the man.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for her; That he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, That he might present her to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that she should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Thou art beautiful, O my love, as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners.

I begin to overdo the quotes. Jesus shall not give his glory to another, nor his praise to a graven image. But who is Jesus’ glory? Who is Adam’s glory? “The glory of the man [of Adam] is the woman.” “The glory of the Man [of Christ] is the Church.” Though Israel is threatened by exile, threatened to become just another of the nations, and thus to lose her identity as the people of YHVH—though indeed YHVH is threatened by exile, threatened to lose his joy and his delight, threatened to lose his glory Israel, yet he shall not give her to another. Her eyes have overcome Him, and He shall visit and redeem His people. He shall not give Israel his glory to another.

So what does “not giving His glory to another” consist of? Precisely, giving his glory to others, by making them His. Jesus has refused to give His glory to another precisely in that He has glorified us by pouring out His Spirit on us. Had He not glorified us, He would have given His glory to Nothing. “Jesus will not give His glory to any other” means nothing short of Jesus will glorify us with that glory which He and His Father had before all worlds, the Spirit of Truth.

A little late.

2010-02-15T16:32:00.001-08:00

The post I promised over on Pr. Wilson's blog will be up a little late.

A Math Question

2010-02-13T11:38:00.000-08:00

sin 15/cos 15 + cos 15/sin 15 = (sin² 15 + cos² 15)/(sin 15 cos 15) = 1/(sin 15 cos 15) = 2/(sin 30) (double angle formula) = 4.

Prove this result without using any trig. (Label the legs of a 15-75-90 triangle x and y. Show x/y + y/x = 4.)

Spiritual Reception

2010-01-25T21:57:00.000-08:00

I've been skimming through Nevin's The mystical presence: a vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine. I've registered objections to the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist. But on this read through I was struck by something common to both Lutherans and Reformed. Both want to stress that our reception of Christ is spiritual, not carnal.[1]

I wonder, how much of the difficulty here is over a misapplied modifier. It is surely true that we do not receive Christ carnally in the Eucharist. But is that because we receive Him spiritually, not carnally; or is it because, as I Corinthians says, His Body is not carnal, but Spiritual?

How different would Westminster be if it said "Receivers, partaking of the elements, do then receive and feed upon the Body of Christ, which is not carnal or corporeal, but Spiritual, and thereby in this Spiritual food receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death: the body of Christ being then, not corporal or carnal--that is after our bodies, and the body of the first Adam--but Spiritual, is present in the Bread and Wine.

Or the Solid Declaration "We reject the Capernaitic understanding of the Resurrection and Ascension, and hence of the Eucharist, which is ascribed to and forced upon our churches by the Sacramentarians against our manifold public protestations. For indeed Christ does not have a carnal body, and therefore cannot be carnally present in the Eucharist, nor carnally received. Rather His Body is Spiritual, and therefore this Food is Spiritual Food, and is received Spiritually."

_______________
[1]Thus Westminster "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." And the Solid Declaration: "We reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the gross [and] carnal presence which is ascribed to and forced upon our churches by the Sacramentarians against our manifold public protestations. In this sense we also say [wish the word spiritually to be understood when we say] that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are spiritually received, eaten, and drunk, although this participation occurs with the mouth, while the mode is spiritual.).

New Blog

2010-01-23T17:07:00.001-08:00

Not replacing this one, but different subject matter. The new one's for food.

http://coquinae.blogspot.com/

Heidelberg

2010-01-17T13:29:00.000-08:00

Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits? Answer: Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ.

There is much to be appreciated here, but one phrase, repeated twice, seems to come very close to an assertion that this table we eat from is not the Lord's table. "that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes...he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ..."
If what is before us is indeed food--and surely Christ puts food on His table!--this is a strikingly bizarre way of talking. It would be as if I were to say "as surely as you eat the bread, your stomach will cease aching, you will feel refreshed, and have more energy. As surely as you drink this water, your thirst will be quenched." Which of course, is bloviating nonsense. Just say, "Eat this bread. It will nourish you. Drink this water. It will nourish you." Likewise here. If Christ's table has bread on it, we should simply say "This bread and cup I receive from the hands of the minister and taste with my mouth nourish my soul to everlasting life." But then, we end up with some sort of Augsburg Catholic understanding of the Sacrament, for only the Body and Blood of Christ nourish our souls to everlasting life.

Penitential Seasons

2009-11-30T13:03:00.000-08:00

Why does the Church celebrate penential seasons? Particularly, why, if Israel had only one season of fast, does the Church devote so much time to fasting?

It seems that there are two main reasons.

First, our feasts are far more joyful than the Jewish feasts. Yes, it is good that Israel was delivered from Egypt. But God is Man! Christ is Risen! The Spirit has Come! The Jewish feasts, and the Jewish joy were just a just a shadow of the Christian feasts, and the Christian joy. But anyone who has sung, knows, it is not be emphasizing the climaxes that a fff dynamic is reached--try that and you'll just sound awful--but by pulling back on pianissimo's, piano's and mezzo-piano's. Similarly here, emphasize the feasts, not by trying extra hard to make them very very extra super joyful, but by making the contrasting fast deeper. And then, not only will our joy be greater, it will be joy in salvation from death, not just generic joy.

Second, when Joel Osteen preaches life life life, but no cross, we imediately see him as a fraud. "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Without the Cross, there is no Christian. "As many of you as have been baptized have been baptized into his death." "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness." Leave out the Cross, and you have left out the gospel. The gospel is Christ is crucified, and has risen.

But a large part of the liturgical year is to preach Jesus to ourselves. And if we meditate on the Cross only briefly, we are liturgical Osteenites, skipping over the Cross to preach goodness.

Of course, it is quite possible to celebrate penitential seasons as if we are not forgiven. And that is wrong. Even during Lent, Christ is Risen! And we do not bring Christ down by celebrating Advent or Lent. There are dangers in the other direction. But we're Americans, our typical heresy is Osteen, and a difficult fast would be a day or too. Far more than we need the reminders not to be morbid, we need the reminder that "if you wish to be my disciple, you must take up your cross and follow me."

Mary and Other Children

2009-11-23T17:09:00.000-08:00

I am not here arguing that Mary did not in fact have other children, but merely responding to what seems to me to be a rather silly argument that she have more children. Namely, that she would be blessed with them. If she had other children, they were not a blessing. I post this because it seems to me that the idea that more children would be a blessing is a particularly pernicious doctrine. Pernicious because it rather directly asserts that something more can be added to Christ. Because it rather blatantly asserts that dividing someone from Christ is a blessing. Which it manifestly is not. Perhaps Mary had other children. But God did not honor her by giving her more children.

First, the full blessing in motherhood had already come to her when she was the mother of God. She was infinitely fruitful, beyond human hope, and we think a greater quantity of children can add to this? yes, if her Firstborn was of the same quality. But He was not. In bearing Christ, Mary has born the whole human race. Adding more children adds nothing.

And second, if Mary has more children, her attention is divided with each one. Each time she has a child, she is less devoted to the others. If someone with ten children looses one, it is a big deal; but not nearly so big as if someone looses their only child. And if we say Mary has more children, we are saying she gives less attention to Christ than she would otherwise. This is not a blessing.

Mr and Mrs Tim Marston

2009-11-22T12:50:00.000-08:00

Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck. How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! How much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices! Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon. A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard, spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices: A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.

Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved? I raised thee up under the apple tree: there thy mother brought thee forth: there she brought thee forth that bare thee. Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned.

Let us pray. "Lord Jesus Christ, you set your servant Israel as a seal upon your arm so firmly that you remained faithful to her even unto death, and through your resurrection proved your love stronger than death. Send your Holy Spirit on Tim and Hilary that they may love each other with that same unquenchable love you love them. Set each as a seal upon the arm of the other that as you bear the name of Israel, and as Israel bears your name, they may find their very identities not in themselves, but through your Holy Spirit, in each other; and together in you, as they are with you in your Father. You took your up cross that you might raise them up under its shade and waters flowed forth from your piercèd side to restore lost Eden and the Tree of Life; grant that Tim and Hilary may daily take up their own cross that they may raise up each other, and their children under your Tree, and that rivers of living water may flow from their piercèd sides that they may be for each other a small foretaste of Eden and the Tree of Life. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen."

My blessing to you is this: May all your children rejoice that their mother, she who bare them, raised them up under Christ's Tree. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

The problem with ex opere operato: the priesthood of all believers.

2009-09-12T15:46:00.000-07:00

The doctrine that sacraments work ex opere operato is widely rejected by Protestants, but I am not entirely convinced that the terms of the debate have not shifted since the time of the Reformation; with the result that our objection is to something different than what the Reformers objected to, and actually our objection as typically phrased is a disguised objection to Faith Alone.

We say "Catholics believe that the Sacraments impart grace aside from the intentions of the recipient, which reduces Christ's institution to magic." Now there are two problems with this objection: First, it doesn't accurately reflect the Catholic doctrine. A Catholic would say the Sacraments are means of grace, but only if... Only if I am X are the Sacraments a means of grace. But more fundamentally, it is an objection standing on works, against faith alone. It is, from the early Protestant perspective, precisely a Catholic objection to the Protestants. The Protestant position is "the Sacraments are grace, whether we mean it or no. When we receive the Sacraments, we receive Christ, whether we will or no. They are God's Word to us that we are His. No matter how good we are, no matter how faithful we are, they are God's Word to us that we are His. And His Word does not return void--it actuall accomplishes its content, and therefore makes us His." It is, of course, possible for us to shout "liar" back at God, and when we do so, precisely in distrusting God and pulling from Him we condemn ourselves, for He is our Life, and to leave Him is to die. But whether we will or no, and even if we call Him a liar, the Sacraments are God's Word to us that we are His, and they are His work to make us His. They in fact communicate Christ to us. Even should we ultimately be condemned, we have yet been baptized into Christ, and have tasted Christ. And even should we ultimately be condemned, (though this is perhaps more Orthodox) Hell is not separation from God, but union with the God we hate--for those in Hell are resurrected, and we are only resurrected through union with Christ.

And anyway, aside from being based on works righteousness, the objection that the reception of the Sacraments is grace only if we... is not one that would have been raised in the time of the Reformation. When we read it back into Luther and Calvin, we read something they historically would not have said. Why not? Well, first, no one believed it; but second, no one ever received the Eucharist. Maybe once a year. Maybe. Generally they just went to Church and watched. And the doctrine was that merely by the Mass being said their sins were forgiven. (Thus Masses could be said for the dead or for the absent, and it was not the prayers which helped the dead or the absent, but the saying of the Mass itself, particularly the offering of the Bread and Wine.) And this is a highly objectionable doctrine. Though I'm not a scholar, my guess is that the objection to ex opere operato Sacraments is not to the idea that the Sacrament is grace to any who receive, but that the Sacrament is grace whether it is received or no.

Thus the objection is closely related to the objections to Sacerdotalism, and to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. I must come to Christ, I must meet Him, I must receive Him--or rather Christ must come to me, He must meet me, He must receive me. If another is in Christ's presence, good for Him. What is that to me. And the Catholic doctrine as it was, assumed that I should, perhaps, come to Christ; but I may not find Him good if I do--better to come through another, never approach Christ myself. The Sacrament will be offered, and merely by being offered, I am saved.

The question remains: is this still a valid objection to the Catholic doctrine? I'm not quite sure about the answer. Doctrinally, it was mostly corrected by Vatican II--though I believe there is still that deadly "the Sacraments are grace, conditionally." But it seems that the problem still lingers; particularly through the tension between whether Protestants are or are not members of the Church, which tends to cause the Church to be identified with the Bishops, and not the faithful. But this is no longer where the cheif objection to the Catholic Church should stand. The objection should be that the Bishops and the faithful no longer care for the Word, nor the Eucharist, nor Prayer, nor even Christ--as demonstrated through the widespread empty architecture, empty translation of the Scriptures, empty translation of the liturgy, irreverance toward the Eucharist, and little fear of the Lord.

(Objections which most devoted Catholics would, I believe, find accurate.)

Why should we pray to Jesus when we can pray to the Mary?

2009-08-30T17:16:00.000-07:00

That's the question an Ethiopian Orthodox girl asked Michael Spenser because he prayed to Jesus and not to Mary.

When he questioned her, she elaborated "Why should we pray to God or Jesus when we can pray to the Mary. The Mary is sinless and she is the mother of Jesus. She can take our prayers to him. It’s better to pray to the Mary."

Now clearly, this girl is very confused. But I'm not exactly sure the confusion is exactly where we would think it is. Does she have an idolatrous view of the Theotokos? Perhaps, but this quote doesn't seem to suggest she does. She still hopes to have her prayer heard by God, and she knows he is the source. But she thinks the easiest way to get his ear is to go through his Mother.

Now I don't believe it, but I could concede that she is correct. It may well be true that if we ask St. Anthony to pray that we find our keys, we will be more likely to find them than if we ourselves pray that we find out keys. It may well be that prayers to Mary for prayers are more effective than prayers to Christ. But, and here is the key point, more effective in what? More effective at getting getting good things--that is at getting good reflections of Christ. But one critical thing is left out--the presence of Christ. For the reason we pray is emphatically not in the first place that we get this or that (though it is important that we get this or that, and for most of us, myself included, the actual impetus for prayer is this or that) but that we may be in the presence of Christ. And stopping at Mary and never preceding forward to Christ lacks, by the very nature of the case, this important element. This all important element.

Which is why much of the Catholic defense of prayers to the saints is deeply flawed. Why should we not ask saints to pray for us? Because we ourselves should enter into the presence of Christ, rather than asking someone else to enter for us, and remaining in the dark.

If there is a defense of prayers to the saints, it is that in the presence of Christ we find not Christ alone, but the whole company of the heavenly hosts. And Christ is present with us precisely in and through them. In the presence of Christ we find other comforters. But give me nothing of prayers for prayers. I myself must see Christ. I and no stranger.

But returning to this girl, her problem is not that she has idolatrized the Theotokos, but that she has idolatrized these things here around us. Prayer is effective means she gets good things--and the things legitimately are good; that isn't my point. But the things have replaced Christ. But I wonder, is she altogether too far from us in this?

(Her problem may also be that she thinks God is remote and scary. But again, do we not have the same problem? We say God the Father is remote, when in face he is no more scary and remote than Christ, for Christ has revealed Him.)

Michael Vick

2009-08-14T12:26:00.000-07:00

I'm against dog fighting, just like you are. But I wonder, if former Carolina Panther and convicted murderer Ray Carruth were released from prison, and were seeking reinstatement, would there be this much furor surrounding him?

And why is there less outrage toward Pitino than toward Vick? If people showed up at Louisville basketball games with pictures of aborted fetuses, everyone would attack the protesters. But we're all sympathetic to the animal rights activists who protest Vick.

Aeneas Aeneadesque ait:

2009-08-13T14:20:00.000-07:00

O sola infandos Trojae miserata labores,
quae nos, relliquias Danaum, terraeque marisque
omnibus exhaustis jam casibus, omnium egenos,
urbe, domo socias, grates persolvere dignas
non opis est nostrae, Dido, nec quidquid ubique est
gentis Dardaniae, magnum quae sparsa per orbem.
Sed Carthago delenda est!"

From Virgil and Cato. Translating the Aeneid I've been really shocked by Aeneas' lack of hospitality (to put it mildly)--Dido should have told him she'd marry him when she finished her tapestry, and remained loyal to Sichaeus--for this Aeneas comes with no gift but fire and salt. Fire to destroy the city--as indeed Rome herself, then in Asia, had just earlier been destroyed--and salt to destroy her crops. Here is your thanks Dido: Et Carthago delenda est.

"I may wel lese a word on yow, or letter,
Al-be-it that I shal be never the better;
For thilke wind that blew your ship a-wey,
The same wind hath blowe a-wey your fey."

--Dido to Aeneas, from Chaucer's The Legend of Good Women.

Evian

2009-07-11T14:51:00.000-07:00

Everyone's probably seen this already, but here it is:

Gilbert Keith Dursley?

2009-07-11T13:15:00.000-07:00

You know, I don't think I'd object too much to having G. K. Chesterton as an adoptive father.

St. Francis

2009-07-11T09:38:00.000-07:00

I'm a little curious why so many people think it ridiculous that St. Francis talked to animals. Have they never had a pet? A much better question would be why they don't talk to animals.

The Most Expensive Scoop of Ice Cream You Will Ever See

2009-07-02T23:56:00.000-07:00

White Truffle Ice Cream.

Salt Blocks

2009-07-02T16:36:00.000-07:00

If you are looking for chic dinnerware, consider salt.

For various ideas of how to serve food on salt: The Himalyan Salt Block Guide.

The custard frozen on salt sounds most interesting to me.

Lettuce and Potato Ice Cream?

2009-06-28T20:26:00.000-07:00

And 100 others.

My favorites include:

17. Raw Horseflesh Ice Cream. The mere thought of putting raw horseflesh into ice cream may be enough to produce plenty of neigh … er, naysayers. And, rightfully so. You can get it straight from the horse’s mouth, this would have to vie for the vilest ice cream ever created. The chunks of meat inside it offer ample proof of why horseflesh is usually used in dog food.

24. Deep Sea Water Ice Cream. Brine may well rhyme with fine and shine, but this flavor offering the salt of the sea does neither. Imagine drinking some milk at the beach precisely the moment you cop a mouthful of water after a huge wave dumps on you and you’ve got something like this extraordinary taste.

Though others may actually be good, like:

37.Cherry Blossom Ice Cream. Given the love the Japanese have for their national emblem, this ice cream could never be anything but a dessert delight. The scrumptious sweet is yummy for the tummy, brightening up the taste buds the same way its ingredients bring about a delightful transformation across the entire country every spring. The treat may well show that Japan’s ice cream makers are blossoming, but don’t forget you’re chomping away on flowers.

75. Rose Ice Cream. Just like inhaling a bouquet of roses, except you’re eating them!

What good is there in denying that the Theotokos had additional children?

2009-06-27T23:34:00.000-07:00

The Theotokos quickly and rightly becomes a metonymy for the Church. If we reverence the Theotokos as mother of others besides Christ, which is to say, she finds her identity in others besides her Son, we, through the metonymy say that we should find our meaning in others besides Christ.

Does it add to or subtract from the Theotokos' honor to say she had other children?

2009-06-27T23:30:00.000-07:00

It would seem that it adds to her honor because children are an honor, and she would be praised for any subsequent children. Children are a blessing and a crown.

It is true that there is more honor in having two children than one. But that is because there is only finite honor in bearing a child. But Mary deserves infinite honor for bearing God the Word, for she has given us an infinite good. And additional finite honor can not add at all to the infinite honor she already has as Theotokos. The finite adds nothing to the Infinite. But moreover, not only would she receive infinite honor side by side with finite honor, the infinite honor includes any of the finite honor. In bearing further children, she has done nothing more than she did in bearing God the Word, for in Him all things consist. The infinite honor which belongs to her as Theotokos includes any other additional honor she could receive.

So it doesn't add anything to say the Theotokos is also the mother of human persons, but does it subtract anything from her? Though again, it doesn't subtract anything from the mother of a human person to say she had additional children, but rather adds, such reasoning does not apply here. As Theotokos she is not the mother of a human person, but a Divine Person: God the Word. And He is to be her all. She is commanded to love her Son with all her heart and soul and mind and strength. And if she has additional children her love for her Son is divided, and because she is finite, lessened. Which is to say, she is worthy of less praise.

Brahms Ein Deutsches Requiem

2009-06-26T13:33:00.000-07:00

A few comments:

In movement 2: Notice the sharp contrast between the seeming glory of this world and the true glory of the world to come. The music reaches a climax on "our glory" because from here our glory seems true and eternal. Aeneas was to found an eternal city. Augustus would bring peace and justice to all. Capitalism shall conquer. The Eagle shall spread democracy to the ends of the world, and of her reign there shall be no end unto the ages of ages amen. But all flesh is grass, tenuous and mournful, no glory but the grasses bloom. The climax is false and falls apart in mourning and timidity.

But the Word of the Lord endures forever! And here is the real climax. Adam is fallen. But--ewige Freude!--Christ is Risen! And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Notice the word-painting on "Schmerz und Seufzen" (Sorrow and sighing), and the great joy that answers in "shall flee away."

Similarly in movement six, notice the contrasting timber, dynamics and, melody between the "no lasting city" we have here and the Resurrection. This, for all it's earlier seeming glory, is but sotto voce. But the baritone solo proudly proclaims the resurrection and the incorruptible which shall come.!

And here's the text and translation.

Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

2009-06-25T22:21:00.000-07:00

Memory Eternal!

How should we respond when someone we know isn't a Christian dies? Or when someone we hope shall be resurrected to glory, but aren't absolutely sure? Can we, here, at our most desperate and vulnerable, turn anywhere other than to God in prayer?

The media is probably afrenzy now with hopes that his legacy shall be eternal, or at least long lasting. And for his sake, I hope he is long well remembered. But all flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. Who must we hope remembers him--and indeed us!--perpetually? Surely not the people: the people is grass. No, we must, in opposition to the current idolatries hope and pray that the Life Giving Spirit, the Lord Jesus Christ our God, shall hold him, and us, in perpetual, or rather, eternal memory.

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Te decet hymnus Deus, in Sion,
et tibi reddetur votum in Ierusalem.
Exaudi orationem meam;
ad te omnis caro veniet.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Lux æterna luceat eis, Domine,
cum sanctis tuis in æternum,
quia pius es.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine;
et lux perpetua luceat eis ;
cum Sanctis tuis in aeternum,
quia pius es.

Though he did not place his trust in thee, O Christ: May his memory be eternal.

______________________
The music is movement 2 of Brahm's Ein Deutsches Requiem. The text and translation can be found here.

Jesus walks on Water: a Parable

2009-06-18T15:25:00.000-07:00

This is in response to the tendency of many Christians to look at the Christian to see if he is really saved, or just nominally so.

And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. Now there were in the ship besides the twelve, many women who followed Jesus, including Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons. And the disciples, together with the women, each answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And Judas stepping down out of the ship thought only of himself and his own strength and began straight-way to sink. And others of the disciples, including Peter, when they were come down out of the ship, began to walk on the water, and to go to Jesus; but seeing Judas sink founder under the waves, they were afraid, looking to themselves, began to sink. Meanwhile Jesus held the gaze of the disciple John and the women, and they continued to walk toward him. But the disciple John, seeing that some were sinking, and wishing to be sure that in fact he was not, began to look quickly between his feet and Jesus, that he might prove to himself that he was not sinking. Moreover, he pulled a mirror out of his pocket, and kept checking the mirror to make sure he was indeed looking to Christ. Now this wouldn't have been all that bad, for he was looking to Christ, but suddenly he realized that it makes a great difference whether he was drowning or not, and began calling to the women, telling them that unless they would look at themselves and see that they were indeed looking at Christ, he would doubt that they were, and began calling on them to repent and look at their own looking to Christ. But the Magdalene and the other women rejected his cries, and fixed their eyes only on Jesus. And coming to the boat with Jesus, he instructed the women to help him lift the drowning apostles out of the water. Jesus himself gave his hand to Peter, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? and walked with him to the boat holding his hand, lest he sink. And the women, following Jesus' example, each reached out her own hand and raised up the other disciples, and led them to the ship. But meanwhile John protested that they weren't looking at themselves looking at Jesus and continued to protest that he would think they might be drowning so long as they didn't look at their own looking to Jesus. But Jesus laughing, called him back to the boat, and reprimanded him for not looking at Jesus alone, but for instead looking at himself to check to see if he was looking to Jesus.

Theotokos and Chalcedon

2009-06-07T13:03:00.000-07:00

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [theotokos]; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

I had a discussion with a Reformed man recently who argued (supposedly based on Chalcedon) that Mary is not literally theotokos, but that theotokos is merely a trope. A synecdoche. And hence it is true, but just as "the Holy Ghost over the bent / World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings." is clearly false and heretical if taken literally, so likewise theotokos is false and heretical if taken literally. He has even gone so far as to say "As to theotokos, I believe that the title only works as a trope, making use of the communicatio idiomatum. In no real way is Mary the originator of God, nor does she enjoy such glory or adoration."

The appeal is to the Definition of Chalcedon. As another interlocutor said "in Chalcedon, what is predicated of one nature can be predicated of the person, but not of the other nature. So Mary bore the one who was and is God, but she did not originate God any more than we can say that a divine attribute is being, say, five ten, or, for another example, having black hair."

But do they have grounds to stand on regarding Chalcedon? It is surely true that the Theotokos did not originate the ousia--whatever that would mean!--nor that the Theotokos originates God outside time. And both of those are clearly heretical, and believed by no one.

Though it is possible, if we read no further, to take "as regards His manhood" to mean "under a trope", Chalcedon clearly states that Mary is Theotokos. And at the end it clearly says "one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ." Which is about a clear a statement as there can be that the One who was incarnate is in Himself God. "God the Word was born of the Virgin Mary" is literally true.

Which means that if we take "as regards his manhood" to mean theotokos is true according to a trope, and not literally true, we are, at the critical point where according to the Creed there must be one, introducing two. We are, in short, Nestorian.

Which brings us to the question, raised above, or whether Mary originated God the Word. The answer, of course, is yes and no. Mary did not give God His being, but she did originate him into this world. She did not originate God in Himself, but rather into creation.

God's Grandeur

2009-05-26T14:03:00.000-07:00

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; 5
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; 10
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

--Gerard Manley Hopkins.

Pr. Sumpter mentioned in his bible study today that "Gethsemane" means "Oil Press". This connection then with God's Grandeur, the Spirit (the oil), and the Crucifixion, really adds a lot of depth to this poem. Hopkins isn't just saying that nature is great and reflects God, but that Christ on the Cross has poured Himself out into nature, and though we try and hide from the Crucified God, yet still, by the Cross, the Spirit broods on the face of the Earth.

It also gives a cruciform form to this poem which matches nicely with Hopkins' imagery in this section of The Wreck of the Deutschland:

I kiss my hand
To the stars, lovely-asunder
Starlight, wafting him out of it; and 35
Glow, glory in thunder;
Kiss my hand to the dappled-with-damson west:
Since, tho’ he is under the world’s splendour and wonder,
His mystery must be instressed, stressed;
For I greet him the days I meet him, and bless when I understand. 40

6

Not out of his bliss
Springs the stress felt
Nor first from heaven (and few know this)
Swings the stroke dealt—
Stroke and a stress that stars and storms deliver, 45
That guilt is hushed by, hearts are flushed by and melt—
But it rides time like riding a river
(And here the faithful waver, the faithless fable and miss).

7

It dates from day
Of his going in Galilee; 50
Warm-laid grave of a womb-life grey;
Manger, maiden’s knee;
The dense and the driven Passion, and frightful sweat;
Thence the discharge of it, there its swelling to be,
Though felt before, though in high flood yet— 55
What none would have known of it, only the heart, being hard at bay,

8

Is out with it! Oh,
We lash with the best or worst
Word last! How a lush-kept plush-capped sloe
Will, mouthed to flesh-burst, 60
Gush!—flush the man, the being with it, sour or sweet,
Brim, in a flash, full!—Hither then, last or first,
To hero of Calvary, Christ, ’s feet—
Never ask if meaning it, wanting it, warned of it—men go.

Ascension

2009-05-21T15:11:00.000-07:00

Thou hast ascended in glory, O Christ our God, and gladdened thy Disciples with the promise of the Holy Spirit, having become confident of the blessing. Verily, thou art the Son of God, and Deliverer of the world.

Here's an excellent Ascension Day homily.

An Arabic Christmas Hymn

2009-05-21T14:55:00.000-07:00

Ok, so it doesn't have anything to do with the Assumption, but I really like this sort of thing--if only because it shows how universal the Church is.

Requiem Aeternam

2009-05-13T22:01:00.000-07:00

Why is it that prayers for the dead are always linked to Purgatory? The Requiem Mass is completely intelligible, even without a belief in Purgatory: the prayers are not that the dead would be quickly released from Purgatory, but that the dead would be given rest, and that they would receive a blessed resurrection.

Prayers for the Dead

2009-05-12T21:50:00.000-07:00

I'm really confused by the Protestant argument that we shouldn't offer prayers for the dead. Now I can understand the objection that some specific prayers act as if God is out to get sinners. I personally like the dies irae, but I can understand why someone would object to the lines "Lacrimosa dies illa, qua resurget ex favilla judicandus homo reus." "That tearful day when the accused man shall rise from the ashes to be judged." Uh...isn't the resurrection our hope?

(Of course the day of judgment is a terrible day, if not for pie Jesu, fons pietatis, and the next line following the one I quoted is a prayer that God be merciful "Huic ergo parce, Deus: Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem. Amen." "To Him therefore be lenient, O God: Gentle Lord Jesus, give him rest. Amen.")

But the objection that we shouldn't pray for the dead because we have been promised that they are blessed simply doesn't make sense. This is perhaps the only time I've ever heard it claimed that the fact that we know something is in accord with God's will is reason for not praying for it. It would rather seem that we should pray for the dead precisely because we have been promised they are blessed.

Icons of "Passing Away"

2009-05-10T22:39:00.000-07:00

This post is a response for Josh to this post, that Wordpress for some reason won't let me publish.

What do you do with icons of old testament saints, like the ones which follow?

St. Aaron (with his rod that budded, and wearing his priestly robe) or St. Joshua (notice the sword), or St. David (I mean can you really get through a Vespers or Matins service with all its kathismata and think some of St. David is "demonic"?), or St. Isaiah, or St. Jeremiah.

I could go on and list more Old Testament saints. And as I noted above, the prophets who wrote scripture are holding excerpts from their writings just as New Testament authors, like say St. Paul, or St. Matthew. It is, of course true, that these icons should all be seen on the model of the Theotokos Hodegetria, they are holding their scrolls and books because their books contain Christ, and Christ is only known in the breaking of the bread, that is, in the Church, but still, veneration of the saint involves veneration of their scroll just as veneration of the Theotokos implies veneration of her Word.

Here's a few other Old Covenant saints just for good measure: St. Noah, St. Abraham, St. Miriam, St. Solomon, St. Elijah.

Christ the Torah

2009-05-05T12:39:00.000-07:00

And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me...And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die....And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

Already here we see that the Law was not the substance, but merely a foreshadowing. God speaks the Word, and the worlds are framed. Next, He spake the word, and there came all manner of flies and lice in all their quarters. He spake the word, and Israel passed through on dry land. But now, He speaks the Word, and it is not accomplished. Earlier, God's Word of command to Pharaoh was refused. God told Pharaoh to let his people go, and Pharaoh made them make bricks without straw. But God continued speaking to Pharaoh till eventually God's Word was effective. And here again, God speaks the word, and it is ineffective. Which means merely, that God has not finished speaking. His great effective Word is yet to come.

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath [O Spirit], and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Here Ezekiel, speaking when God's command was most clearly ineffective--impossibly, Israel had not heard the Word of the Lord, and since "not to obey God's command is not to be"[1] Israel has ceased to exist, swallowed up by the nations--prophesies that God shall continue speaking, that He shall speak to Israel, and resurrect them, and then that He shall speak to the Spirit, and His Spirit rush into His People, and make them live, to finally against all hope, keep Torah--a prophesy which finds it's fulfillment in the Resurrection of Christ when He puts sinews again on the dry bones of Israel, and ultimately in Pentecost, when He speaks to the Wind, and the Wind is put into Israel.

The Word of God

2009-05-05T00:14:00.000-07:00

'Come back, Saruman!' said Gandalf in a commanding voice. To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned again, and as if dragged against his will, he came slowly back to the iron rail, leaning on it, breathing hard. His face was lined and shrunken. His hand clutched his heavy black staff like a claw.

'I did not give you leave to go,' said Gandalf sternly...

'He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.' There was a crack, and the staff split asunder in Saruman's hand, and the head of it fell down at Gandalf's fee. 'Go!' said Gandalf. With a cry Saruman fell back and crawled away.....

'...He has changed; but we have not had a chance to see how much, yet. But think of the last part of that business with Saruman! Remember Saruman was once Gandalf's superior: head of the Council, whatever that may be exactly. He was Saruman the White. Gandalf is the White now. Saruman came when he was told, and his rod was taken; and then he was just told to go, and he went!"

Tolkien The Two Towers

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Isaiah 55:8-11

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters...And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so...1And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so...And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so...And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1

And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Exodus 20

We tend to think that God has commanded, but we are quite capable of disobeying His commands. Perhaps this brings His wrath upon us, or perhaps the commands were given merely to show us that we were incapable of keeping them, or to show who Christ would be. Do we really have such a low view of God? Are we really so exalted above God that His word is ineffective over us? He formed the world by his command, but we can resist his Word? We have made God far less than Gandalf, and, contrary to St. Paul's word in I Timothy, have not made ourselves the worst of sinners, for we think our fall far less than Saruman's--he could not stand before the command of Gandalf. We stand in defiance before the Word of God Himself.

But isn't this what St. Paul teaches? Doesn't St. Paul teach that the Law was ineffective to save? Yes, and indeed it is. But it is ineffective to save, not because it is merely a word of command, but because it isn't God's commanding Word, but is only a type of His Command. His true Command was to come, and indeed has come, for it is Christ, and for us, is the Word and Sacrament.

Or better yet, the Word from Sinai is powerful and effective, and as Isaiah said it would not, it has not returned void. It has accomplished what was commanded. In itself it is powerless, but it is not in itself, but has found its fulfillment in Christ, who was born under the law.

And indeed that St. Paul was not made righteous by the command should have prompted Him to realize that this could not be the full Word of God. God's Word does not fail. Yet for Him it had, and therefore perfection had not yet come.

Seeing and Judging

2009-05-04T23:43:00.000-07:00

James Jordan has said that in the Bible sight is associated with judging, whereas hearing is associated with obedience. He is correct that the eyes of God try the sons of men, and that we hear God's command, but it seems to me that sometimes sight is submissive, and sometimes we judge a word.

First, Song of Songs 6:5 says "Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have overcome me." At first glance this passage may seem to support the idea that sight judges. The Bride has overcome the Man by looking at him, and judging Him. But this isn't quite sufficient. The Man did not hear the beloved's eyes, but sees them. And this sight does not judge, but rather is judged.

But telling, I John 1 says that the Apostles have heard the Word, and now speak what they have seen. "That which was from the beginning...which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon...of the Word of life...That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." God's Word is not merely heard, but is seen. Which of course blows apart the postulated distinction. We hear God's Word by seeing Him, and thereby in our submission judge.

Indeed one could go so far as to say that the Old Law was ineffective to command because it was only heard, but the New Law is effective, because it is heard and seen and touched and tasted. That might be a stretch, because the difference between the Old and the New is that God is here in the New, and not in the Old, but then again, we perhaps could say that God is here in the New in His Fullness, as a Person whom we may touch and see and taste, and if He were not, the New would be no different from the Old.

Heidelberg

2009-05-04T23:10:00.000-07:00

Question 5. Canst thou keep all these things [commanded in the law of God] perfectly?
Answer: In no wise; for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour.

Wouldn't the following be better:
Answer: Most assuredly I can. God's command is never ineffectual. By His commanding Word He formed the world. And likewise, by His commanding Word, our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, I shall be formed. He has washed me with pure water, and continues to speak His Word to me in the Supper, and His Word never fails. Though I do not now keep all these things, and often fail to, yet, by God's Word, I can and shall.

Question 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?
Answer: Indeed we are; except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.
My Answer: By no means. Though without His Spirit we are nothing, and doomed to die, yet we have been given the Spirit through our Baptism, and feed upon His Word in the Eucharist. And through Him we can do all things.

Question 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?
Answer: Not at all; for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil, and his own wilful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.
My Answer: Not at all; man can perform the law, and has. And through that man, I can and shall. God has washed me, and continues to gently command me through the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. And His speaks with authority. Even the winds and the waves obey him, and indeed even I, rebelious though I try to be, shall obey Him. His Word never fails. By His Word, I can and shall obey His command perfectly.

Ok, after this the Catechism gets too far afield from what I believe for me to even begin to rephrase it.

Legions of Angels

2009-05-02T23:05:00.000-07:00

And the manner of his acceptance of that death was appropriate to the life that levied it: he died rather than turn from his mission to us, he died in obedience to the Father. Thus Jesus' death sealed his identity as the Father's Son and the man for others; just so the fact that he now lives is unconditionally and irreversibly good for us. The Risen Lord of the universe is the one who died rather than abandon us, and whose power is defined by the obedience of love

Jenson A Large Catechism p. 25

I hadn't ever thought of Jesus refusal to call down legions from heaven in these terms before. Had Jesus called in the troops, what would they have done? Saved him, and killed those who were against us--which is all of us. Christ did not call down the legions from heaven because to do so would be to kill us.

And this also underscores the death inherent in sin. They didn't realize it, but those who taunted Christ to save himself were directly asking for their own death. "Call in your guard to execute those who would hurt you." "Yes, indeed I could call them in. But then I would execute you. And I had rather die than kill you."

A Large Catechism

2009-05-02T23:01:00.000-07:00

I recently purchased this little book for just four dollars. I'm about half way through it, and it's probably the best four dollars I have ever spent. I suppose I my little icon of the Theotokos was only four dollars too. Perhaps that's a rival. Perhaps. Buy a copy. I'd put up the good quotes, but I think I'd run into copyright problems too quickly. It's that good. Buy a copy.

Jenson on Mary

2009-05-02T22:27:00.000-07:00

So also, Mary has place in the creedal version of the gospel-narrative. If God the Son is this woman's child, then she is the Mother of God. Accordingly, Mary has her own miracle, that the conception was "by the Holy Spirit," and her own corresponding title, "the Virgin."

The sense of "by the Holy Spirit" is once again given by supporting stories, this time from Luke's Gospel. In them, the Spirit active in Jesus' birth is shown as he "comes upon" persons to enable prophesy, as in so many accounts in teh Hebrew Scriptures. Mary conceives and brings forth Jesus as the prophets conceived and brought forth their words from God; John's Gospel says her son is the Word from God.

Mary is therefore the church's archpreacher. Accordingly she has a title, "the Virgin," in order for the church to call on her, to invoke the ministery of one "higher than the cherubim, more glorious than the seraphim." that Protestants often avoid wrongly invoking the Virgin by not doing it at all, is a great loss and offends against the Creed.

--Robert W. Jenson A Large Catechism p. 24

(And it is worth noting that this book is a comment on and expansion of Luther's Catechism.)

And if I might comment on this further: As Jenson says Mary is the prophet whose words are true and effictive, for indeed her word is not a mere word, but the Word. Moreover, it would be wrong to restrict her word to this one time. If her word were only given here, once, then God would have elevated her, and humbled her, and but then refused to resurrect her. If Mary is not eternally the preacher not only of the word, but of the Word, if she is not the prophet whose Word is true and effective; she humbled herself before the Lord, by raising her Son up as greater than herself, and yet He has refused to lift her up. And if God's promise to Mary is not true, his promise is not true. Our salvation depends on the eventual glorification of Mary, for if God is not true to her, God is not true, and our faith in Him is unfounded.

A specific application of Mary's effective word is seen in her presence at the foot of the Cross. Here at the foot of the Cross, Mary siliently speaks to her Son, and quietly reaches out to him as the sole comforter. And her Word is not ineffective. Christ had said that rivers of living water should flow from us. St. Paul would say that through our sufferings we ourselves would Comfort and Save others. Shall we say that she whose Word is effective is less than us?

That is to say, rivers of living water poured from her pierced heart to God dying on the Cross, and indeed effectively flowed to Him, for His Comfort and Salvation. Christ lives because His Bride, in the person of the Theotokos, stood by him, and poured forth water from her pierced heart for his salvation. And through Him, to all His Church.

And in this sense, precisely because the Holy Spirit has come upon her and she is the Prophet of the Father, she archetypally, but with her all her children whith whom she divides the peanalty given to Christ, are coredemptrix.

Singet dem Herrn ein neues Leid

2009-04-25T19:18:00.001-07:00

Hugo Distler

Text and Translation:
I
Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied,
denn er tut Wunder!

II

Und er sieget mit seiner Rechten
und mit seinem heiligen Arm.
Jauchzt dem Herrn alle Welt!
Singet, rühmet und lobet!

III
Lobet den Herrn mit Harfen und mit Psalter
und mit Trompeten und Posaunen!
Das Meer erbrause, und was darinnen ist,
der Erdboden, und die darauf wohnen,
die Wasserströme frolocken,
und alle Berge sein frölich vor dem Herrn!
Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied!

I
O sing unto the Lord a new song;
for he hath done marvellous things.

II
With his own right hand, and with his holy arm,
hath he gotten himself the victory.
Show yourselves joyful unto the Lord, all ye lands;
sing, rejoice, and give thanks.

III
Praise the Lord upon the harp; sing to the harp with a psalm
of thanksgiving.
With trumpets also and shawms.
Let the sea make a noise, and all that therein is,
the round world, and they that dwell therein.
Let the floods clap their hands,
and let the hills be joyful together before the Lord!
O sing unto the Lord a new song!

(English Coverdale translation)

Zizioulas, Lutheran

2009-04-24T14:02:00.000-07:00

"The doctrine of justification by faith alone implies that human reality is not a substance given prior to all cumminity. Rather, humanity happens in the event of communication, in the speaking and hearing of the word. The word--the actual ordinary human word--is the active initiation of human reality. What I am is not defined in advance by some set of timelessly possessed attributes; it is being defined in the history of address and response in and by which you and I live together. So also, past, present, and future are related other than by the traditional schemas. The doctrine of justification will be secured only when the ontology so sketched is worked out."

--Robert Jenson Lutheranism p. 66.

Isn't this the thesis of Communion and Otherness, namely that particulars do not exist as themselves, but only as from another individual, that we are not men, and then men in communion, but individuals in communion, in the image of Another, and thence, men?

Hristos Voskrese

2009-04-19T12:40:00.000-07:00

Make sure you listen to the last one, which is in in English.

People rejoice, nations hear:

Christ is risen, and brings the joy!
Stars dance, mountains sing:
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!
Forests murmur, winds hum:
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!
Seas bow*, animals roar:
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!
Bees swarm, and the birds sing:
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!

Angels stand, triple the song:
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!
Sky humble yourself, and elevate the earth:
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!
Bells chime, and tell to all:
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!
Glory to You God, everything is possible to You,
Christ is risen, and brings the joy!

HT: Father Stephen

And let us all pray our Lord and Christ that He restore the unity of His Bride, that we may all with one voice celebrate this blessed feast of Pascha!

Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.

Through the prayers of our holy Fathers, especially the most glorious Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, and of all thy saints, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us.

Christos Voskrese!

It is masculine to submit, feminine to lead

2009-04-17T16:14:00.000-07:00

I have heard it said that the feminine submits, and the masculine leads. Thus a mother is masculine toward her children, and feminine toward her husband.

But this doesn't seem right to me. "Masculine" and "feminine" must be concrete terms if they are not to be mere arbitrary definitions. And what can concrete mean here, if not derived from the relationship of Christ and His Church? If these definitions are correct, God commands, the Church submits.

But what do we find? O Res Mirabilis! "He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." God submits and the Church commands.

Tantaene animis caelestibus irae!

2009-04-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

How great is the anger of the celestial soul!

I was working through the beginning of the Aeneid today, and Virgil uses this line to describe the wrath of Juno poured forth on on Aeneas. And it made me wonder to what degree the message of Good Friday is "Tantaene animis caelestibus irae!" There was an ancient city, founded as a colony of heaven, more dear to YHVH than any other, surpassing in his affection even the angelic city, which He nourished and hoped would be the queen of all the lands. But the fates decreed that sinful Adam should overthrow its citidel, and fire consume her. And on the Cross, God has immolated the evil city founded by him who overthrew his city. And raising His Son from the dead, God established his first city on a new foundation.

Should it not be "Tantusne animis caelestibus amor!" "How great is the love of the celestial soul!" Though we would destroy God's most dear city, and hurl ourselves into death, yet God would have none of it, and sent His Son that through His Death we might Live.

"How great is the love of God for us that He did not spare His own Son, but sent him to be a covering for our sins!"

Christ Lag in Todesbanded!

2009-04-16T13:29:00.000-07:00

Here's the text and translation.

And This Mortal Must Put On Immortality

2009-04-12T21:24:00.000-07:00

Ortanne Laivino!

2009-04-12T21:09:00.000-07:00

Anwa ortanne Laivino!

(According to the wikipedia for "Pascal Greeting" that's "Christ is Risen, Indeed He is Risen" in Quenya)

I'm trying to figure out if Tolkien would approve of this. On the one hand, in Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien makes it very clear that the Incarnation and the Resurrection are the only hope not only of men, but of elves and indeed all the world. On the other hand Tolkien tried really hard to exclude explicit references to Christ from his work. But if there are elves and gods living now in Valinor, I imagine they greet eachother with such words, at least at this time of the world.

Anyway, the whole thing kinda fits with Tolkien in a way that a Klingon Pascal greeting (also on wikipedia) does not. (The Klingon greeting indeed seems to come close to making a mockery of Pascha.)

"Deus homo factus est, natura mirantur!"

(Now that I look into it more, it seems certain Tolkien would approve. He translated several Christian prayers into Quenya.)

Christos Anesti!

2009-04-12T21:02:00.000-07:00

Today is the day of Resurrection! let us be radiant, O nations. It is Pascha, the Pascha of the Lord; for Christ has brought us from death to life,and from earth to heaven, who now sing the song of victory.

Glory to thy Holy Resurrection, O Lord!

Let us purify our senses that we may behold Christ radiant with the unapproachable light of Resurrection, and we may clearly hear him say: Rejoice! while we sing to him the hymn of victory.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad, as it is proper; and let the whole world, visible and invisible, keep the feast; for Christ, our everlasting joy has risen.

Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

Jesus is risen from the tomb, as he had foretold, and has bestowed upon us eternal life and great mercy.

God is Dead: Holy Saturday

2009-04-11T12:35:00.000-07:00

Today, Neitzsche is correct. Today, God is, to use the language of the Creed, dead and burried.

Good Friday II

2009-04-10T14:12:00.000-07:00

Er sprach zu mir : halt dich an mich,
es soll dir jetzt gelingen,
ich gebe mich selber ganz für dich,
da will ich für dich ringen,
den Tod verschlingt das Leben mein,
da bist du selig worden.

He spoke to me: trust thou in me,
It will be of great help to thee.
I give myself entirely for thee,
Now indeed I struggle for thee.
My life devours death,
Thus indeed you become blessed.

But alas Lord, I am not the saint by your side. Trust on thee? How Lord? Is this a blessing or a curse? I cannot trust. How can I trust till thy life has devoured my suspicious death? Trust thee? Tis but another command. A new law. A new ordinance against me. Till thou make me trustful, I shall not turst. How shall I trust thee that thou may make me trustful?

Fear not. My life has overcome thy death. I shall wash thee with pure water. Nevermind that you do not understand. Whom I wash, I clean. And I shall feed you with my very life--for the blood is the life of the animal. Drink my life, and you shall be made clean. Drink my blood, and my trust shall become thy trust, and you shall live.

Good Friday

2009-04-10T14:01:00.000-07:00

Today God ineffably pours Himself out that should we know the mystery of His death, we might live. If we trust completely in the Dying Lord, we shall live.

But alas! Alas! Our minds cannot plumb the depths! How shall we know the ineffable mystery and live? We have seen Him, and we believe not.

Worry not. The mystery is ineffable. But we have been washed with pure water, and may now approach the Holy of Holies. Worry not if we know, only take and eat. For here is Food immortal, Food which will transform us into Him. Here before us is Bread which is Eternal Life. We are too small to know the Passion, but here is Bread which is in no wise less than the Cross. Eat it, and in eating, know Christ Crucified.

An Update

2009-04-09T09:50:00.001-07:00

For those of you who thought I would convert Saturday, I decided not to be Catholic afterall. I'm still at Trinity Reformed.

Clement of Alexandria

2009-04-09T09:49:00.000-07:00

Steven Wedgeworth posted this quote from Clement of Alexandria, seemingly thinking that it shows that a Calvinist understanding of the Sacrament is Patristic.

And he is correct, that if we assume that Clement and Calvin use "Spiritual Blood" unequivocally this quote shows Clement is a Calvinist.

But if instead of assuming we know the definitions, we try and use this quote to understand what Clement means by "spiritual blood" the quote seems to argue against rather than for Calvin. For this quote to be for Calvin, it would have to say "Blood of Jesus" can be used in two senses. It can mean in the first case, the literal blood. But under a trope, it can mean the wine of the Eucharist which, by the power of the Spirit communicates the blood of Christ.

But it doesn't say that the term "Blood of the Lord" is equivocal, but that the thing the blood of the Lord is two-fold. Which would mean that the blood which was poured forth on the cross is the same thing as what we drink in the Eucharist, but under a different mode of existence.

Calvin

2009-04-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

Here's a baffeling post from Calvin.

I'm having trouble understanding Calvin's point. Fasts of or exceeding forty days are relatively common. For instance, the Korean Zen masterSeung Sahn fasted for a hundred days on nothing but pine needle tea (for vitamin C, without which you can't even fast forty days) and rain water.

And I'm not sure why he thinks Moses didn't hunger. Ok, maybe there are Jewish sources. So the same man that mocks The Angelic Hierarchy will make use of similar speculation--provided it's from a Jewish not a Catholic source? Maybe I'm missing something, but something doesn't seem quite right there.

And talk about overthrowing the sacred tradition for contemporary theology.

My Only Comfort

2009-03-08T16:31:00.000-07:00

Question 1: What is your only comfort, in life and in death?

Answer 1: That I belong - body and soul, in life and in death - not to myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of His own blood has fully paid for all my sins and has completely freed me from the dominion of the devil; that He protects me so well that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed that everything must fit His purpose for my salvation. Therefore, by His Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for Him.

There is much to be admired in this quote, but it seems to come up really short on a couple of points.

First, how can we ask about our comfort, and completely fail to mention the resurrection? "What is your only comfort, in life and in death?" "Christ is Risen from the Dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." Would be a much better answer.

I do find more problematic, and I'll get to it in a minute, but I'd like to pause here. They try to sum up our hope, and completely fail to mention the Resurrection. Something is seriously amiss here. If Christ be not risen we of all men are most to be pitied. What is our only hope? The Resurrection!

The other striking lack is the failure to mention the Sacraments. When Heidelberg talks about the Sacraments, it can be relatively sacramental. But here, when asked what our hope is, we are not told "Christ has washed me, and in that washing has promised to lead me to His side." When asked what our hope is, it does not say "I have received the body of Christ, I have tasted the fountain of immortality."

For Matt Yonke

2009-02-14T23:29:00.000-08:00

Though it would be fun to see if three people still read this blog, I don't particularly want to mail anyone anything. But if Matt's willing to give me something, I'm game for that.

Justification by Faith, and the Immaculate Conception

2009-01-20T11:22:00.000-08:00

A number of Catholic and Orthodox theologians have said that God saves whoever does the best they can. "God will not deny his grace to the person who does the best he can." This leads to the minimum requirement for justification: doing what is in oneself "faciens quod in se."

Though such theology can come from a generous soul "God will save those who seek Him, even if they never directly hear Christ preached" it also seems to imply that we must ascend to heaven to bring God down. And it is on this second point that the Reformation turns. Luther's protest is essentially "there is nothing in the man, only in Christ. The Cross alone saves. The Cross alone does what is in itself."

But though Luther is certianly correct to reject what had become a denial of grace, I'm not entirely sure he is entirely correct. Namely, I think he places the unmerited divine imposition upon us in an incorrect place. God does not suddenly begin operating on us in regeneration--be that in Baptism or when faith first comes--but at the Annunciation. Lady Day is the celebration of the unmerited divine intrusion into our lives. We can do nothing to bring God down, but on March 25, God has come down. And our old earth-bound meanness and kindness are no longer earth-bound, but reach to heaven.

This transposition of our earthly loves is most clearly seen in the Theotokos herself. Her love for her Son is not of a different sort from any other mother's love. It is not unlike your mother's love for you. It is not unlike Bathsheba's love for Solomon. It is not unlike your love for your children. But it is completely different from your love for your children. Though they share everything in common, they share nothing in common. Her ordinary maternal love for her Son is not ordinary maternal love, but is extraordinary maternal love of God.

Similarly, her Son's filial love for her and Joseph is not unlike your love for your parents. Yet there is nothing in common between the two. For her Son's ordinary filial love is not ordinary filial love, but is God's filial love for Mary.

Similarly, when Mary was sick, and the neighbor women let her rest, and took care of Jesus, they have not been kind to any mother, but to the Mother of God. When Jesus was hungry, and a wealthy merchant gave him a loaf of bread, that merchant has shown kindness to God Himself.

And if we, being evil, know how to receive good gifts, how much more shall our Father in Heaven know how to receive gifts? For which of us, if our two-year-old gave us a loving scribble, would not hang it proudly on the wall? So too Christ is delights in our kindness to Him, and actually thanks us for our kindness. But what is Christ's thanks, if not life everlasting--as he says in the parable.

If we ended the story here though, nothing would be proved, but that Jesus is monumentally unfair. Seven our eight ordinary people get to love God simply by loving their neighbor. But the rest of us don't. The rest of us just love our neighbor.

But that isn't what Jesus says. "Whatever you have done to the least of these my brothers you have done to me." We, all of us, are invited to love our neighbor, and are told that our love of our neighbor precisely is love of God--even though our neighbor is but a smelly old man. And Jesus is good, and delights to be thankful to us for our meager charities, and to shower great blessings on us for them.

If we do what we have been given to do, Christ shall, in gratitude, raise us from the dead. He has promised no less. And by the Incarnation, this salvation is grace alone from first to last.

But there is one woman, alluded to above, whose righteousness really did bring about the Incarnation. "For thou hast found favor with God." What of her? We know she was spotless by the time of the Incarnation, for the spotless God is her fruit, and we do not gather figs from brambles. But how did she come to be spotless? Did she do what was in her and so by merit to carry the Lord? By no means! For doing what is in us is only an acceptable doctrine because of the Incarnation. It is literally nonsense to say that God became Incarnate because He had become Incarnate.

Nor does it seem to make sense to say that she had been cleansed by the Holy Spirit. For two reasons. First, to be purified, she would have had to be washed in the Blood of the Lamb. But the Blood of the Lamb is her own blood--or at least was for nine months. And we have the same problem we had above--Christ became Incarnate because Christ had already become Incarnate.

And second, the Spirit permeates all creation, but does not abolish it. It is only by the life of the Spirit that anything lives or acts at all. And so "she has been sanctified by the Spirit" is only a subtle way of saying "she did what was in herself"--for neither the Pentecost of the Church, nor her own private Pentecost had yet come.

That is to say, by the time of the Incarnation, Mary was a ladder leading God down from heaven. By the time of the Incarnation, Mary merited to bear the Lord. By the time of the Incarnation, Mary had found sufficient favor with God that she would become the mother of God. But that favor could not have come from her own purification of herself, nor even from Christ's Blood poured on her. Which is to say, she was always without sin.

But how, it is asked, does this make her life everlasting grace? First, though she was perfect, though she was a fit vessel, nothing she did required an Incarnation. Even to Mary, the Incarnation was pure grace. Natural human nature, even unfallen human nature, does not, in a slightly different sense than it was used above, merit the Incarnation.

But second, the fundamental problem with sin is death. If sin did not kill sin would not be sin. And even were Mary as free of sin as her Son, yet she was no less subject to death than her Son. And it is by His resurrection that she lives. Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon Mary in the tomb bestowing life.

Is he Orthodox?

2009-01-13T16:25:00.000-08:00

Or is it just coincidence that Ben Afleck named his daughter "Seraphim Rose"?

A Black Friday Giveaway not in any Newspaper

2008-11-28T12:51:00.000-08:00

St. Mary's:

For all corporate members who come in by 8:00, and stay till 8:30: The Lord of heaven and earth, the delightfulness behind all delightful things, supersubstantial bread from heaven having within it all sweetness.

Panis Angelicus
Fit panis hominum
Dat panis caelicus
Figuris terminum
O res mirabilis!
Manducat dominum
Pauper servus et humilis.

Te Trina Deitas
Unaque poscimus
Sic nos to visita
Sicut te colimus
Per tuas semitas
Duc nos quo tendimus
Ad lucem quam in habitas!

Exmas and Crissmas: Another Chapter from Herodotus

2008-11-28T12:18:00.000-08:00

Across a great sea from Niatrib, there lies another land, Acirema which is said to once have been a colony of Niatrib--but due to the size of the sea, this seems improbable. Nevertheless, inspite the great distance separating the two lands, their winter celebrations are nearly identical. With the following two differences:

First, after harvest, as winter approaches, the residents of Acirema celebrate a great Vestalia in honor of Turkus, the Aciremian name for Vesta and Ceres, thanking her for the great harvest.

After the closing of the feast, the Exmas celebration officially begins, and a fervor, like that which was on the women who tore Orpheus limb from limb, descends on the inhabitants of Acirema and they are consumed by a desire for deals and wealth. The day following the Vestalia all the residents rise hours before dawn, and descend in droves on the market, and expend themselves getting and spending, in hopes of acquiring some worthless trinket to give away in the grand Exmas celebrations the next month.

The other great difference between the customs of Niatrib and Acirema is that whereas in Niatrib a small religous sect celebrates the feast of Crissmas on the same day the rest of the Niatribians celebrate Exmas, in Acirema, the innitiates of that cult seem to believe that the true celebration of Crissmas is to celebrate Exmas, but to mention their god in the midst of their Exmas celebrations.

When I asked a man who seemed to be some sort of orator for this sect why they run the two festivals together, he replied that Exmas is a good and necessary celebration of Vesta, but that it is important that his household god join in the revelry and bless her cult.

On the Lighter Side

2008-11-18T10:45:00.000-08:00

Do you think we'll see Spock cutting people's heads open to steal their powers?

A Clarification

2008-11-01T22:12:00.000-07:00

Regarding my post from last Wednesday, note the title of the post, and the significant changes from I Samuel 12.

Who is the King in my post?

Indulgences

2008-11-01T21:22:00.000-07:00

Internet Monk had a post recently on indulgences, and the Reformation. Naturally, and rightly, like most Protestants he has a very strong dislike for the doctrine.

First, I believe, as any good Catholic would, that Tetzel's selling of indulgences was wrong, and a radically evil perversion of the practice.

Second, I believe strongly that Luther and the other Protestants were completely correct in objecting to such Catholic practices. Whatever errors Luther may have made that furthered the schism, the schism was caused by the radically corrupt Catholic Church. And I have written elsewhere that I believe the Protestants at the time of the Reformation were faithful. So I'm not attacking Protestants.

Third, I believe that much of the traditional language surrounding indulgences is ridiculous. I think that there are translation issues, both from Latin to English and from scholarly to vernacular, but the usual language of remitting temporal punishment for already pardoned sins seems ludicrous to me. It reminds me of the scene in The Great Divorce where one of the ghosts says "of course I forgive him as a Christian, but I can never forget what he did." Except now it's God whose damned.

All that said, I think there may be some justification for indulgences.

Let's start by examining the parable of the Prodigal Son. The son returns, and the father kills a fatter calf in celebration of the son's return. The father does not say "good I'm glad you returned, now work as a servant to make back the money you wasted, and then I'll invite you back to my table." The father leaps up, rejoicing, and slaughters a fatted calf.

And despite the silly silly language that surrounds indulgences and Purgatory, and that confuses and draws astray many, so far as I can understand, the Catholic (and Lutheran and Orthodox and to some degree Reformed) doctrine precisely is that when we return to Him God slaughters a Fatted Calf, Jesus Christ, and holds a lavish feast for us. For what is the Eucharist but the Supper of the Lamb? And who would dare say that though we have Confessed, yet we are not welcome at the Pascal Banquet? Who would dare say the penitant does not feast on the Fatted Calf, slaughtered by the Father to rejoice in the return of the prodigal?

Here the story of the Prodigal son leaves off, so it is not directly relevant to the discussion of indulgences. But I think we can extend it a little, and see how indulgences make sense.

The son has come home, and is again living with his father. But have his old habits entirely disappeared? If his old friends find him, might he not be tempted to follow them in a night of carousing? Might he not be tempted to eat selfishly at his fathers table as he ate at his own? In short, though he has returned, and is once again in his father's family, he still needs to learn from his father, to mature, and leave behind his old habits. And until he has done so, it is impossible for him to fully enter into his father's feast.

Now it might not be true, but it seems plausible that the Church, our mother, could tell us "doing this will make you leave behind the old habits. There are other ways, and they will disappear eventually, but this particular thing is the sort of thing your father really wants you to do, and doing it will make you leave behind your old habits."

But two (very strong) objections still remain. First, what about indulgences I can do for someone else?? And second, and more serious, isn't Christ's sacrifice sufficient?

Christ's sacrifice is indeed fully sufficient. But his sacrifice is so sufficient that it not only makes us flesh like the old Adam, but Spirit, like Christ. We, conformed into the image of Christ as in a mirror, become life giving Spirits. And somehow we may imitate Christ and become the fatted calf, sacrificed for the prodigal son. And as I Peter says, by our stripes others may live. And so again, it seems plausible that the Church could say "here is something you may do to immolate yourself that through your emptiness others may live."

And the deepest mystery of all is that somehow Christ, through the Spirit,allows us to suffer not only for the salvation of our friends, but even for our own salvation.

The Theotokos: On Good Friday, and Ascension Thursday

2008-10-22T14:57:00.000-07:00

And the Spirit sent Nathan unto the King. And he came unto Him, and said unto Him, "There once was a very rich lord; with a poor handmaid in his pay. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor handmaiden had nothing, not even one little ewe lamb. But the rich man, seeing the handmaid's low estate gave have her the choisest of his own lambs, which she bought up and nourished: and it grew up together with her, and with her children; it did eat of her own meat, and drank of her own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto her as a son. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the handmaid's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

And The King's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

And Nathan said to the King, "Thou art the man."

The God of Affluence: "The Affluence of Capitalism as a Christian Good", Review

2008-10-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

In this work, Dr. Schneider puts forward a vision for the life of the Church destroys her central mission, captivating her instead to the powers of this world, and makes the Gospel of Christ, indeed Christ Himself, merely a handmaid to another Gospel.

A few quotes (set off with my commentary):

"So it seems capitalism should be celebrated as synonymous with 'liberation of the poor.'"

"He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord...This day, through the might of Capitalism, is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

"It seems that business people (you) should be honored in our time as "revolutionaries," that a career in business would be venerated as "heroic," as one of the morally best things that any person could do."

"As Virgil said, the Birth of Augustus brings in a great reign of peace. We Christians are for peace. The most moral thing a Christian could do is pursue a career in the Roman Army, protecting her peace."

"Instead of Che Gueverra, young social activists today should be going around with pictures of Adam Smith screened on their T-shirts."

"Shall we soon be genuflecting and making the sign of Adam Smith too?
Give me St. George any day:

And on his brest a bloodie cross he bore,
The dear remembrance of his dying Lord,
For whose sweet sake that glorious badge he wore,
And dead, as living ever, Him adored.
Upon his shield the like was also scored,
For sovereign hope which in his help he had.

Or even better a poor woman dressed in a simple Sari, carrying in her hand her only weapon, sent into the poorest of the poor to be God's light among them."

"It [capitalism] is indeed a new way of life, a new human order that calls into existence a new kind of human being. It calls forth and nurtures a new type of person, with a new sort of human vision, human character, human dispositions, and human habits of both the mind and heart."

"Whoever is in Capitalism is a new creation, the old has gone the new has come."

"On the contrary, one of the key things that make [sic] capitalism work is that it liberates human beings in the most fundamental personal sense. The liberation is not just material, as is often claimed." (Emphasis his)

"You shall know the Capitalism and the Capitalism shall set you free."

What I ask? Shall we refuse to offer incense to Augustus, only to offer our Consecrated Bread to Caesar, only to pour out libations of Consecrated Wine to the Emperor?

No. I have eaten the Bread, I have drunk the cup. I will not bow before Caesar. I will not set my hope on horses, or dollars. I will trust in the Lord God. I will be a tree planted by the water, I will be a light, I will be a seed, but I will be a seed that lives because it dies, a light that shines because it burns, and a tree that bears much fruit because it is a Cross. I am not greater than my master.

Lord have mercy.

Christ have mercy.

Lord have mercy.

Solae

2008-10-16T11:27:00.000-07:00

Sola Scriptura: This is tricky and I may give it a few posts itself.

Soli Deo Gloria: This too, though it doesn't sound like it would be, I think this is actually rather tricky, and deserves it's own posts.

Solo Christo: I afirm this sola whole-heartedly. With two reservations. First, Nec Pater nec Spiritus Christus est, tamen a Patre Spirituque salvamur. "Neither the Father nor the Spirit is Christ, yet we are saved by the Father and the Spirit." But I think that point is aside the issue raised by Solo Christo.

The more fundamental problem I have, but which is not really a problem, is that we must affirm Salvamur a Solo totoque Christo. Salvamur Sanguine Christi. Salvamur Carne Christi. Et salvamur a Corpore Christi, Ecclesia. We must affirm "we are saved by Christ alone, but by the whole Christ. We are saved by the Blood of Christ. We are saved by the Flesh of Christ. And we are saved by the Body of Christ, the Church."

Specifically, Solo Christo does not preclude Catholic doctrines like the Pope as vicar of Christ, nor particularly, the intercession of the saints, their mediatorship, nor the effect of their merits. While these doctrines may be false, Solo Christo does not prove them so because they are all actions of the Church, the Body of Christ.

Sola Gratia: I agree wholeheartedly. But we must remember that both creation, the Incarnation, and Pentecost are grace. Specifically, it is not a denial of grace alone to say that sinners recognized that Christ loved them, and so gave themselves to Him. Christ Himself is grace. As is their natural inclination toward love. (Not of course that God could have created otherwise, but that their creation itself is grace.) Nor, by the power of Pentecost, is it a denial of grace alone, to say that a sinner can recognize the love of a saint, and turn to him, and through him, to his God.

Christ, and the saint are, like the Sacrament, God for us. And as such, we have the power to turn to them and be healed.

Sola Fide: Ad firmandum cor sincerum, Sola fides sufficit. "For strengthening the sincere heart, faith alone suffices." Not that Aquinas meant quite what the Reformers did by sola fide when he said this. I don't think I have anything else useful to say on this one.

Ascension

2008-05-04T17:47:00.000-07:00

Jesus Christ has ascended the True Mountian to pray, and invites us to ascend with him, sitting enthroned beside Him.

Christos Anesti!!

2008-04-27T13:22:00.000-07:00

This joyful Eastertide, away with sin and sorrow!
My Love, the Crucified, hath sprung to life this morrow.
Had Christ that once was slain ne'er burst his three-day prison,
Our faith had been in vain, but now hath Christ arisen.

My flesh in hope shall rest, and for a season slumber,
Till trump from east to west shall wake the dead in number.
Had Christ that once was slain ne'er burst his three-day prison,
Our faith had been in vain, but now hath Christ arisen.

Death's flood hath lost his chill, since Jesus crossed the river:
Lover of souls, from ill my passing soul deliver.
Had Christ that once was slain ne'er burst his three-day prison,
Our faith had been in vain, but now hath Christ arisen.

Thy Will Be Done

2008-04-22T17:47:00.000-07:00

"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..."

"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me."

We often pray the Lord's prayer. (Or if we do not, we ought to.) But we are often tempted to see the petition that the Father's will be done as nearly servile submission to God. In quite the inversion we think (at least implicitly) that the saints of old talked back to God, but in the new covenant we are now greater and closer to God, so we must be more submissive to Him. David demanded much of God. Jacob refused to let God go save He bless him. But we meekly ask Christ to bless us, if it is his will. Or we spiritualize blessing, taking all the sting from it.

If we are to follow the example of the Saints of old, if we are to faithfully pray the Psalter, if indeed we are to imitate Christ in His High Priestly prayer, we must pray with backbone. We must tell God the injustice He has done to us, and demand that He glorify us with the glory He had before the World began. (And yes, as Christ's resurrection was physical, so this glory is physical.) We must pray "Lord Christ, I'll not let thou go except thou bless me."

But yet we have the Lord's prayer before us. "Thy will be done." But read on. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." How is Christ's will done in heaven? Are not the saints the bride of Christ? Are we not a suitable helpmeet to him, able to answer back to Him, and stand up? Are we not strength and honor not our clothing? Do we not open our mouth with wisdom? Does not Christ cry out that we avert our eyes for they have overcome Him? Are we not terrible as an army with banners--terrifying even to Christ? If we shall be such in heaven, can we seriously pray that God's will be done "on earth as it is in heaven", without praying fiercely, without demanding satisfaction, without praying "Lord, I'll not let thee go, except thou bless me!"

You Are the Hope of the World

2008-04-20T20:58:00.000-07:00

I was really impressed by the Pope's address to the young people and seminarians at St. Joseph's Seminary.

The Wedding of the Lamb

2008-04-20T15:44:00.000-07:00

Who purifies the Church? Whose righteousness cloths the Church?

Of course the answer "Christ" and "Christ's" is true. But if we stop there, we are refusing to acknowledge the fullness of the Scriptural revelation.

"The marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure—

for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints."

God Grant Him Many Years

2008-04-19T16:11:00.000-07:00

The Just Shall Live by Faith

2008-04-16T14:54:00.000-07:00

Sorry my posts have been a little thin of late. I have been a little busy to get to a computer with good internet connection regularly.

We have a tendency to think that if we were to keep the law perfectly, we would be justified in the sight of God--indeed that in the sight of God we must perfectly keep the law. But because we have sinned, we cannot keep the law, for the law has no ability to undo past sin, and whosoever keeps the wholy law yet fails at one point he is guilty of all of it. Because we have sinned, the guilt of the whole law is upon us. But thanks be to God who's given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Where we were powerless to keep the law, He has kept the law, and so through our faith in Him, indeed through his action we are justified before God. By the blood of Christ we are justified before the Father.

But I do not believe this is actually what the Bible says. Romans 4:13 says " For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." He saith not, Or to seeds, as of many; but as of one, Or to thy seed, which is Christ. Moreover, Habakkuk 2:4 says "The Just shall live by faith" and this is quoted three times in the New Testemant "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." " But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith." "Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." And they all saith not, And to the just ones, as of many; but as of one, And the Just, which is Christ.[1]

Christ is not heir of the world through the law, but through faith. Christ is not just because he kept the law, but because He had faith. Christ was not justified in the sight of God by the law, but rather God justified Him by raising Him from the dead because He trusted in God that He would deliver Him. Christ lives by faith.

How then are we justified? Faith. Whose faith? Christ's.

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and heirs according to the promise."

We are justified because when we were baptized, we were made a living member of Christ. We now are Abraham's Seed. We now are Just--not just ones, but the Just One. We have put on Christ.

And by raising Him from the Dead, the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead is quickening our mortal bodies--His living members.

________
[1]This point is clearer in Greek and Hebrew where adjectives and not just nouns can be singular and plural. In all five cases (the Hebrew, the Septuagint, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews) the singular is used.

Knowledge of God

2008-04-06T12:07:00.000-07:00

"No one knows the Father save the Son and the one to whom the Son choses to reveal Him."

And, by the mystery of the Incarnation, not even the Son knows the Father, except that Mary chose to reveal Him to Him.

Laus Deo!

Ensay Massacre: Six Years Later

2008-04-03T13:37:00.000-07:00

All I can say is this was one of the most harrowing times of my life.

I should have known when I signed up for a school whose policy was "truth, beauty and corporal punishment."

A pascha of the whole world (a day late, yesterday was way too busy.)

2008-03-24T13:33:00.000-07:00

Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

On Friday, our sins, mingled with the blood of Christ, stained the Cross crimson. Today, they have bloomed as pure white lilies. Wherever his bloody foot trods, pure white lilies spring, transforming the blood-soaked land into a garden.

On Friday, the world, with the banner of the accursed tree at its head, had become hell. Today, Christ has arisen, trampling down death by death. Hades has been destroyed. The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, with the banner of the Tree of Life leading the way.

Holy Saturday

2008-03-22T11:40:00.000-07:00

When Mary heard that Jesus her son was slain, she went up to her chamber over the gate. And thus she said "Oh Joshua, my Son, my Son, would God I had died for thee."

"Lord God, you promised that I should rejoice. You promised he should save Israel. Yet Israel has destroyed him. Lord, I'll not let you go unless you bless us. True to thy promise rescue us!"

But the only answer that came back: the dead silience of the tomb.

Bonhoeffer on Suffering

2008-03-21T22:34:00.000-07:00

This post is excellent.

A Second Maundy Thursday Post

2008-03-20T23:59:00.000-07:00

At Vespers on Tuesday, we sang a Theotokon very much like this one. I was struck then how apt it is for Maundy Thurday meditation.

"When Gabriel did announce to thee, O Virgin, saying “Rejoice!”
with that word the Master of all was incarnate in thee,
the holy Ark, spoken of by the righteous David!
Thy womb didst become more spacious than the heavens,
for thou didst carry thy Creator.
Glory to Him Who didst abide in thee!
Glory to Him Who didst come forth from thee!//
Glory to Him Who didst free us by being born of thee!"

Just a couple of quick changes, and:

"When St. Peter's did announce to thee, O Christian, saying "Flesh!"
With that word the Master of all was incarnate in thee,
the holy Ark, spoken of by the righteous Moses!
Thy mouth didst become more spacious than the heavens,
for thou didst carry thy Creator.
Glory to Him Who didst abide in thee!
Glory to Him Who didst come forth to thee!
Glory to Him Who didst free us by being consumed by thee!"

Maundy Thursday

2008-03-20T23:32:00.000-07:00

Though it's originally was used in a slightly different context, I think it makes an excellent Maundy Thursday recessional:

"Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared before the face of all people a light to lighten the gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel."

For the remission of sins

2008-03-17T23:10:00.001-07:00

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

If we believe that Jesus here says that the Sacrament is given for the forgiveness of sins, we tend to believe I receive the Sacrament for the remission of my sins, you for the remission of yours. But I do not think this is quite correct.

In a marriage, not only does the man give himself to the woman, the woman gives herself to the man. And not only does the woman receive the man, the man receives the woman. When the husband and wife touch, each gives himself to the other, and each receives the other.

Similarly, in the Sacrament, Christ not only gives Himself to us, we give ourselves to Christ. And we not only receive Christ, Christ receives us.

But it is not just the natural Christ who is physically present in the Sacrament, but the whole Christ, natural and Ecclesiological. When I receive the Eucharist, I receive not only Christ, but the Church. In the Eucharist not only does Christ give Himself to me, the Church gives Herself to me. And not only does Christ receive me, the Church receives me. Not only do I give myself to the Church, the Church gives Herself to me.

But the Church is not separable from her members. If I give myself to the whole Church, I give myself to each of Her members. If I receive the whole Church, I receive each of Her members. If the Church gives herself to me, each of Her members gives himself to me. If the Church receives me, each of Her members receives me.

In particular, when I receive the Eucharist, I receive not only Christ, but you. Not only do I give myself to Christ, I give myself to you. Not only does Christ give Himself to me, you give yourself to me. Not only do I give myself to Christ, I give myself to you. We, you and I, are united and drawn closer together, when we eat the Bread. I move to you, and you move to me. We are both united in closer love to each other. I love you more, you love me more. That is, when I receive the Eucharist, not only are my sins remitted, yours are too.

Christ Is Good

2008-03-14T11:06:00.000-07:00

We have a tendency to think that Christ is good because He is God. But if Christ is good because He is God, we make "divinity" more fundamental than Christ. We do not want Christ per se but what He is made from. It would be like as if we told our wives "I love you because you are a girl." Or "I love you because you have nice skin." Or more ridiculously, if we said "I love my baby because he has the most beautiful cry." No! We love our baby's cry because we love our baby. We love our wife's skin because we love our wife. We love a woman by loving our wife. Similarly, we love Christ. Not for anything He is made from, but Christ Himself. At the most basic, we love Christ because He is Christ, not because He is God. At the most fundamental level, Christ is good because He is the Son, not because He is God. At the most fundamental level, Christ is Good because He receives everything the Father is as a Gift from the Father. At the most fundamental level, the Father is good because the Son Gives everything He is back to the Father. At the most fundamental level, the Gift is good because He is the fullness of the Son given to the Father, and of the Father given to the Son.

And on a more practical level, our hope is not that we shall see divinity, or even that we shall see a person who has divinity (for then we value divinity over Person), but that we shall see, touch, hear, and be fully united to a Person--a Man more loving, more caring, more gentle, yet more terrible than we can possibly imagine.

Death of the Beloved

2008-03-13T15:22:00.000-07:00

In For the Life of the World Alexander Schmemann says, correctly, that death is a tragedy precisely because death is a separation from this world--and since it is through this world we see God, death is separation from God. Death is tragic because it is the end of the gift, the end of our enjoyment of God.

The Christian answer to death is then, neither to flee from it, and hide from it, like modern America; nor to see all through the lens of death. Rather we must absolutely accept this world as the gift of God, and as our beatific vision--but to cling to the Crucified God, in whose Cross we discover even death itself is a sign of God. Even in death, even when we lose God, yet we find the God who lost God, the God who died. Death has become martyrdom.

All this is from Schmemann, and all this is true. "For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living."

But Schmemann's analysis only covers half the tragedy of death. Death is tragic because I shall die, and be cut off from this world. But death is tragic because this world dies, and is cut off from me. For Dante the tragedy of death was Beatrice's death--and following hers, Dante's was a bright hope. "How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow has she become, she who was great among the nations!"

Where is the answer to their death? On the Cross, Christ died, Christ didn't see his beloved die. Yet the answer must be the Cross. Though the Father suffered the loss of His Son, the answer for us must be incarnate. And so the answer, I believe, is found in the Woman sacrificed, her heart pierced by a sword, standing at the foot of the Cross. Death is no longer a Cross, but a martyrdom. But as Mary, mirror of the Bride, stood at the foot of the Cross, suffering because of the sins of the world, the Church stands at the foot of the Cross, suffering for the sins of the world. In our deepest loss, we fall into the hands of the Mother of God, and we shall find that we fall into the hand of the Uncreated Church.

Recitans Audiensque Scripturas

2008-02-29T15:17:00.000-08:00

As Protestants, we have a tendency to read the Bible as a list of things to be believed. We must read through it and try to believe what it teaches. To believe a doctrine, we must discover it in the Bible, and we must believe whatever doctrine is found in the Bible.

But this is a fundamentally flawed position. And it turns inverts lex orandi and lex credendi, making the second the defining guide for the first, and putting us above the Bible, attempting to comprehend it. But the Bible is not something below us to be comprehended. And the Bible is not and does not contain a law of what ought to be believed. It really isn't even a law of what ought to be prayed (though in Matthew and the Psalms it contains one), rather it is res adoranda and a res audienda and a res oranda. It is something which ought to be adored, something which ought to be heard, and something which ought to be prayed. We should adore it as we adore the voice of our beloved. We should listen attendively to it as we listen attentively to the words of our beloved. And we should pray it as we pray beside our beloved.

Thinking man's thoughts after him

2008-02-26T18:28:00.001-08:00

I believe it was Corneilus van Til who said that we think God's thoughts after Him.

I think he was correct, but I think we tend not to take the doctrine far enough. As a student, I have found that more often than not, I am merely thinking my teacher's thoughts after them. As a child, I have found that, until I give conscious attention to a thought, I think my parent's thoughts after them. Students and children think their parent's and teacher's thoughts after them.

But this means that God thought Mary's thoughts after Mary.

You reply, yes, but Mary was thinking God's thoughts after God. True enough. The Son thinks the Father's thoughts after Him. The Father thinks the Spirit's thoughts after Him. The Spirit thinks the Son's thoughts after Him. And by the mystery of the Incarnation, we are caught up into this dance. We think God's thoughts after Him. And He thinks our thoughts after us.